Editorial: Special-ed tax hike cannot be justified

For decades, Jackson County voters have strongly supported special education. Repeated renewals of tax millages have funded a system that has provided excellent education and made sure local districts were compensated for nearly every special-ed dollar they spent. Our special education services often have been touted as among the best in the state — with the highest millage rate to go with it.

The educational landscape, meanwhile, has changed in Michigan and in Jackson County. School districts are looking at consolidation and challenging their basic assumptions about the way services are provided.

The local Intermediate School District on Tuesday is asking the public to approve a tax increase that in some ways preserves the way it has always provided services. At a time when so much is changing, voters should not protect the status quo.

Therefore, we cannot support this tax increase.

Our editorial stance is not a commentary on the good work being done by the ISD and this area’s public schools.

Notably, local superintendents have agreed to change the funding formula for special education. Instead of issuing a blank check for school districts’ special-ed costs, officials have now agreed on standards for this education that will limit expenses. If districts want to spend more for a Cadillac program, they can do so — out of their own budget.

The ISD also is not threatening voters, as we have seen in other millage campaigns. It already has laid off 23 aides, some of whom would return to work if the millage passes Tuesday.

So, what if the proposal fails? The ISD would not move as aggressively as it has traditionally to identify children who qualify for special education. Local school districts likely would have to divert money from general education to cover expenses in special-ed classrooms.

Those would be hurdles for schools to face, but arguably nothing worse than what they are going through in other arenas. If there has been a benefit from the funding crunch that school boards face, it is that they have been willing to think differently, to collaborate with each other and to cut expenses that were not truly essential. And they, as well as the ISD, have finally confronted the huge pension and health-insurance costs dragging down their budgets.

Voters, meanwhile, have far fewer luxuries in their personal budgets. The millage request — 0.77 mills that were lost to the state’s Headlee amendment since the late 1970s — would cost the owner of a $100,000 home around $40 a year.

The Headlee amendment, it should be noted, was designed to limit increases in property tax revenue for the ISD and others to the rate of inflation. The amount of money the ISD has received for special education has climbed steadily over the years. It has not suffered.

On Tuesday, the public has the chance to give the ISD an additional $3.2 million a year for the next 20 years. In our view, this is a substantial tax increase that cannot be justified. The potential cuts that have been outlined are reasonable, and not drastic.

Without a strong case to justify higher taxes on an already overburdened community, we recommend the public say no on Tuesday.